Jury Duty.

grh · Post by **grh** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:54 am

No

There are a lot of things I may logically disagree needs to have a law applied to it- that if society feels they need the law, I could set aside my personal viewpoint.

But if it went against a moral absolute for myself, No.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:14 am

yes. If its the law and they have committed the crime they have to serve the time.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:13 am

In the UK our Solicitor General (your Attorney General, near enough) discussed this in committee last year when he saidThe right hon. and learned Gentleman argues that a perverse jury verdict is a safeguard in particular kinds of cases. That is an arguable point. The alternative argument is that the interests of justice are that there should be justice according to the law, and that it is for Parliament to look at that law and alter it as Parliament sees fit. I hear his point about perverse jury verdicts. In the past, they have been lauded as the democratic view of individuals, even though such a view may, on occasion, be contrary to the law. which I think means he concedes there's a place for them.

Our high-profile cases of juries refusing to convict despite the law relate mostly to civil liberties issues and they mostly get cheers from the rest of the country. We've had juries refuse to convict a senior civil servant of breaching the Official Secrets act when he torpedoed government lies about the Falklands war, Multiple Sclerosis sufferers for using cannabis to relieve their symptoms, peace campaigners for trespass on military bases and environmentalists for destroying Genetically Modified crops. The history of perverse juries goes back centuries and as often as not they're egged on by the judges, it's not considered an abuse of the legal system at all.

Post by **spot** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:32 am

rjwould;745318 wrote: I get the impression that you're saying you agree with my post!?

I do apologize, perhaps I should have quoted Jester's original question in order to be more clear who I was addressing.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:41 pm

If I felt the law to be immoral or against what either I or what I felt my God believed, I would vote the way of my ethics regardless of the law.Laws are only made my men and women. I have to live with myself in the end.

grh · Post by **grh** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:17 pm

RedGlitter;745669 wrote: If I felt the law to be immoral or against what either I or what I felt my God believed, I would vote the way of my ethics regardless of the law.Laws are only made my men and women. I have to live with myself in the end.

Then your answer to the question is NO. Or are you saying you could agree and then disregard that and vote your own ethics?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:04 pm

*don't confuse me grh!!* :wah:

I'm saying if the person committed a crime but I thought it shouldn't have been a crime in the first place (example: feeding pigeons) I'm voting not guilty because my heart says that's what's right.

I know...I'd be a terrible juror....but I have to answer honestly.

grh · Post by **grh** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:07 pm

RedGlitter;745752 wrote: *don't confuse me grh!!* :wah:

I'm saying if the person committed a crime but I thought it shouldn't have been a crime in the first place (example: feeding pigeons) I'm voting not guilty because my heart says that's what's right.

I know...I'd be a terrible juror....but I have to answer honestly.

Hey! I just wanted to be absolutely sure we were on the same side in a thread!:p:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:16 pm

grh;745754 wrote: Hey! I just wanted to be absolutely sure we were on the same side in a thread!:p:wah:

Hehe. It's really nice to have you back! :-6